"what defines truth in the digital age"
July 22, 2013 8:25 AM Subscribe
This feels really weird to me. I mean – the obvious superficial reaction is that I don't think these people know what a "troll" is. In general internet parlance, a "troll" isn't someone who's annoying; it's someone who is annoying for the purpose of being annoying. I guess it's possible that this "Hoyt" guy is doing it as sort of a psychological joyride, but it doesn't seem like it much. He seems to really believe what he says.
Of course, that's superficial – precisely because people can use words to mean whatever they want them to mean. If this is a "troll" to them, fine. But the weirdness is deeper. I mean: as they themselves note, "Hoyt" doesn't seem that awful. He asks incessantly if people have checked the facts or whatever, but – fine. Yeah, that's Twitter noise. The worst people on Twitter are much, much worse than that, as anybody who's ever been on Twitter can attest.
And the way they style Hoyt as The Internet Troll and (in the subsequent videos) this other person "Rosie" as The Troll Slayer feels really condescending to me. If someone is just incessantly wrong, that means they misunderstand something. It doesn't mean they're evil and need to be slain. Yeah, I know it's just a manner of speaking, but it's odd to paint all of this in sort of mythical terms of monster vs slayer of the beast. I'm not really sure that internet dialogue is improved by the application of such images.
I guess the key here is that this really isn't at all about online comment culture or "trolls" or anything like that. It's about reporting on climate change and the responses to climate science.
posted by koeselitz at 8:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [9 favorites]
Of course, that's superficial – precisely because people can use words to mean whatever they want them to mean. If this is a "troll" to them, fine. But the weirdness is deeper. I mean: as they themselves note, "Hoyt" doesn't seem that awful. He asks incessantly if people have checked the facts or whatever, but – fine. Yeah, that's Twitter noise. The worst people on Twitter are much, much worse than that, as anybody who's ever been on Twitter can attest.
And the way they style Hoyt as The Internet Troll and (in the subsequent videos) this other person "Rosie" as The Troll Slayer feels really condescending to me. If someone is just incessantly wrong, that means they misunderstand something. It doesn't mean they're evil and need to be slain. Yeah, I know it's just a manner of speaking, but it's odd to paint all of this in sort of mythical terms of monster vs slayer of the beast. I'm not really sure that internet dialogue is improved by the application of such images.
I guess the key here is that this really isn't at all about online comment culture or "trolls" or anything like that. It's about reporting on climate change and the responses to climate science.
posted by koeselitz at 8:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [9 favorites]
A pretty fair representation of what most climate trolls are about: they believe global warming is being used to further a leftist agenda.
posted by stbalbach at 9:00 AM on July 22, 2013
posted by stbalbach at 9:00 AM on July 22, 2013
I would like that so much better if it was "We Tracked Down Our Biggest Troll…and Kind of Licked Him "
posted by srboisvert at 9:06 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 9:06 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
As in dhoyt?
No. Hoyt is a very common name. Some of my favorite relatives carry it, and none are trolls. Hoyt Conner uses it as a first name, like Hoyt Wilhelm did. We have no evidence that dhoyt actually had the name IRL at all.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:07 AM on July 22, 2013
No. Hoyt is a very common name. Some of my favorite relatives carry it, and none are trolls. Hoyt Conner uses it as a first name, like Hoyt Wilhelm did. We have no evidence that dhoyt actually had the name IRL at all.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:07 AM on July 22, 2013
As in dhoyt?
I've got to admit, that was my first thought as well. Not that I thought there was an actual IRL connection, but just as a weird coincidence.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:13 AM on July 22, 2013
I've got to admit, that was my first thought as well. Not that I thought there was an actual IRL connection, but just as a weird coincidence.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:13 AM on July 22, 2013
As in dhoyt?
Heh heh, I came here to write the exact same thing.
I feel like this whole "putting a human face on the troll" thing is a wave making its way around the interpool right now...it seems to turn up fairly regularly. And it violates the cardinal rule every time.
posted by nevercalm at 9:17 AM on July 22, 2013
Heh heh, I came here to write the exact same thing.
I feel like this whole "putting a human face on the troll" thing is a wave making its way around the interpool right now...it seems to turn up fairly regularly. And it violates the cardinal rule every time.
posted by nevercalm at 9:17 AM on July 22, 2013
A pretty fair representation of what most climate trolls are about:
But, to repeat koeselitz's point, that's not what "troll" means. Trolls are people who deliberately argue disingenuously, not just people who are misinformed. A "climate troll" would be someone who said to themselves "I don't care what the truth is about climate science, but I see that people care passionately about it, so I'm going to have some fun tweaking them by claiming that climate science is all bogus. Ha ha ha!" I do think it's actually important to distinguish between "trolls" and "annoyingly misinformed people." Trolls really are a plague on civilized discussion because they sap everyone's sense of the assumption of good faith. Trolls really should be shunned and, preferably, banned. But people who genuinely believe what they are arguing, however foolish the belief, are another matter entirely.
posted by yoink at 9:20 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
But, to repeat koeselitz's point, that's not what "troll" means. Trolls are people who deliberately argue disingenuously, not just people who are misinformed. A "climate troll" would be someone who said to themselves "I don't care what the truth is about climate science, but I see that people care passionately about it, so I'm going to have some fun tweaking them by claiming that climate science is all bogus. Ha ha ha!" I do think it's actually important to distinguish between "trolls" and "annoyingly misinformed people." Trolls really are a plague on civilized discussion because they sap everyone's sense of the assumption of good faith. Trolls really should be shunned and, preferably, banned. But people who genuinely believe what they are arguing, however foolish the belief, are another matter entirely.
posted by yoink at 9:20 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
But people who genuinely believe what they are arguing, however foolish the belief, are another matter entirely.
After a certain point, though, how you deal with them ends up being the same. Someone who insists on arguing that A is correct, no matter how many kindly explanations and links they are provided as to why A is wrong, can end up acting like a troll no matter how sincere and genuine their belief.
I have an acquaintance who is damn proud of how many sites they've been banned from for trolling/speaking truth to power (which one of those depends on what kind of mood my acquaintance is in when they talk about this). I never mention metafilter to them.
posted by rtha at 9:26 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]
After a certain point, though, how you deal with them ends up being the same. Someone who insists on arguing that A is correct, no matter how many kindly explanations and links they are provided as to why A is wrong, can end up acting like a troll no matter how sincere and genuine their belief.
I have an acquaintance who is damn proud of how many sites they've been banned from for trolling/speaking truth to power (which one of those depends on what kind of mood my acquaintance is in when they talk about this). I never mention metafilter to them.
posted by rtha at 9:26 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]
I have similar concerns over this piece as koeselitz, and also this: While I believe that climate change deniers are incorrect and use incorrect methods to interpret inaccurate data in order to (as Hoyt states) make policy, I also believe that the greatest danger on the internet is when people who disagree stop talking to each other.
I see it happen on facebook when I block people from my old church. I see it on twitter when I make my feed private in case an employer disagrees with my politics. I see it on Metafilter when people are told "Metafilter figured this out a few years ago, so we don't want to bring it up again." I see it on Reddit when they do that whole reddit thing that reddit does so well. It's cyber-balkanization and it's not healthy.
posted by rebent at 9:29 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
I see it happen on facebook when I block people from my old church. I see it on twitter when I make my feed private in case an employer disagrees with my politics. I see it on Metafilter when people are told "Metafilter figured this out a few years ago, so we don't want to bring it up again." I see it on Reddit when they do that whole reddit thing that reddit does so well. It's cyber-balkanization and it's not healthy.
posted by rebent at 9:29 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
I also believe that the greatest danger on the internet is when people who disagree stop talking to each other.
If actual conversations are happening, then sure. But if someone is just ignoring, as rtha puts it, a legion of kindly explanations and links, and just continually spouting nonsense, then that stunts discussion. Things never progress.
posted by cashman at 9:51 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
If actual conversations are happening, then sure. But if someone is just ignoring, as rtha puts it, a legion of kindly explanations and links, and just continually spouting nonsense, then that stunts discussion. Things never progress.
posted by cashman at 9:51 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah I think there are better descriptions of trolls than this guy- this guy simply seems poorly educated, misinformed, and not insightful enough to question his own beliefs. If cornered on specific issues, there are many of us who get our information and beliefs from inaccurate sources and can't see through to the facts. He's plugged into a large network of high power socially respected people spreading misinformation and doubt about the science and that is a terrible beast to work with. There are legitimate reasons to want the right to question the dominant paradigm, even when the majority believe in it's truth. However, anyone wanting to dig their heals in regarding their truth being different than the experts truth should be willing and interested to suggest, create, or support the kinds of research they think WOULD be non-biased and pull up the specific variables they don't think have been addressed. Debating without any use of science whatsoever is truly never going to generate the best solution to a problem or the true facts regarding an issue.
I like the idea of addressing pockets of the population who are misinformed by getting to know them and understanding them and understanding the phenomenon of people digging their heals in when cornered to better address the ways ignorant people actively misinform and damage real people in society because of how their beliefs affect behavior and social practice. The penalty for being wrong can be kind of high and in some ways REDUCING the penalty for being ignorant can actually open more doors for people to question their beliefs and change their ideology without their identity and social respect being --well-- slain, in the process. Compassion for the ignorant and how their ignorance works (and how WE can be ignorant too in some ways we don't even know at this very moment) I think can be an asset.
Then again, sometimes I overvalue the potential for peaceful and compassionate action to generate the most meaningful change. Sometimes harmful/hurtful actions can be more effective or necessary so I don't discount that taking a "war" approach to certain social behaviors might be required to achieve the change in time to prevent certain harms.
I was disappointed in the third video because I was hoping there would be detailed discussion of the actual science. It becomes clear why anti-climate change propaganda is so powerful, it defies any willingness to approach science to determine an answer at all-- it's part of why the anti-vax movement is so powerful. The movement is strong because anti-elite/expert speech is a valuable part of American culture. Once upon a time, it was culturally frowned on to discuss the earth being round. The people who do and understand the science (or who are SAID to do it the best) can be wrong. There ARE biases and presumptions within the structure of many fields that are wrong. There ARE business and ego drives driving whole fields of research and how we structure our entire thoughts about humanity and the world we live in. The solution to this is not to throw science out the window, but to acknowledge these are real problems in science, to address accusations of inaccurate understanding with further research and with assisting the general public in having their own understanding of the science and the tools to do their own science to increase individuals ability to assess and understand the science of major issues affecting our world and populations.
What do you do when a person thinks one plus two is three and refuses or is unable to see otherwise? It's a major issue because such a person if allowed to work and behave in the world could build buildings that fall apart, hand out wrong change to people, write drug prescriptions that cause illness or death--- the consequences of ignorance even if there are no negative intentions can be devastating and we DO have to address ignorance and false understanding because the truth really matters. People who spread doubt about science facts and logical understanding are an actual problem and I'm not sure ignoring them is actually the best solution. But when you point out someone is wrong, you challenge their self confidence, their identity, their security they can understand the world, their status among their peers and their employment. Being unreliable at logic, and factual understanding SHOULD cause people around us to question ourselves and our authority and positions of status where those skills are needed. What I mean to say, making a society that is fair and kind even to the unintelligent or unskilled, permits people to admit when they may be wrong or even not suited to a particular job or social status they've been given with more security they will be praised for acknowledging their actual skillset, and permitted work and social acceptance that matches their actual skillsets- rather than punished for being wrong or possibly even having poor logic skills or lack of knowledge. Often people who dig their heals in the most are people who have or have witnessed a lot of prejudice/disdain toward unintelligent people and who can't handle considering they may be unintelligent in their approach to some issues.
Do we need people who throw around doubt about whether the earth is REALLY round, any time we discuss geography or overseas flight navigation? Devil's advocates, even annoying ones, can be valuable if they ask challenging questions, but out right trolls, or the genuinely uneducated, unintelligent, and misinformed, who just want to stir up doubt over basic science just because are not enhancing our understanding of truth or helping us face potential flaws in understanding. People form ideas based on what people they trust believe. Over riding that SHOULD require you understand the person, and demonstrate you are IN FACT more trustworthy than their sources/family/role models who have often won their trust through means other than demonstrating scientific skill, capacity to use logic, and factual knowledge base. These things are just skills and having them doesn't prove you are actually using these skills to truly seek truth and human welfare and to challenge your OWN assumptions and biases even when they seem so obviously correct as to be beyond questioning.
You have to realize that is also the manner in which ignorance breeds and we ALL have done it before.
posted by xarnop at 9:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
I like the idea of addressing pockets of the population who are misinformed by getting to know them and understanding them and understanding the phenomenon of people digging their heals in when cornered to better address the ways ignorant people actively misinform and damage real people in society because of how their beliefs affect behavior and social practice. The penalty for being wrong can be kind of high and in some ways REDUCING the penalty for being ignorant can actually open more doors for people to question their beliefs and change their ideology without their identity and social respect being --well-- slain, in the process. Compassion for the ignorant and how their ignorance works (and how WE can be ignorant too in some ways we don't even know at this very moment) I think can be an asset.
Then again, sometimes I overvalue the potential for peaceful and compassionate action to generate the most meaningful change. Sometimes harmful/hurtful actions can be more effective or necessary so I don't discount that taking a "war" approach to certain social behaviors might be required to achieve the change in time to prevent certain harms.
I was disappointed in the third video because I was hoping there would be detailed discussion of the actual science. It becomes clear why anti-climate change propaganda is so powerful, it defies any willingness to approach science to determine an answer at all-- it's part of why the anti-vax movement is so powerful. The movement is strong because anti-elite/expert speech is a valuable part of American culture. Once upon a time, it was culturally frowned on to discuss the earth being round. The people who do and understand the science (or who are SAID to do it the best) can be wrong. There ARE biases and presumptions within the structure of many fields that are wrong. There ARE business and ego drives driving whole fields of research and how we structure our entire thoughts about humanity and the world we live in. The solution to this is not to throw science out the window, but to acknowledge these are real problems in science, to address accusations of inaccurate understanding with further research and with assisting the general public in having their own understanding of the science and the tools to do their own science to increase individuals ability to assess and understand the science of major issues affecting our world and populations.
What do you do when a person thinks one plus two is three and refuses or is unable to see otherwise? It's a major issue because such a person if allowed to work and behave in the world could build buildings that fall apart, hand out wrong change to people, write drug prescriptions that cause illness or death--- the consequences of ignorance even if there are no negative intentions can be devastating and we DO have to address ignorance and false understanding because the truth really matters. People who spread doubt about science facts and logical understanding are an actual problem and I'm not sure ignoring them is actually the best solution. But when you point out someone is wrong, you challenge their self confidence, their identity, their security they can understand the world, their status among their peers and their employment. Being unreliable at logic, and factual understanding SHOULD cause people around us to question ourselves and our authority and positions of status where those skills are needed. What I mean to say, making a society that is fair and kind even to the unintelligent or unskilled, permits people to admit when they may be wrong or even not suited to a particular job or social status they've been given with more security they will be praised for acknowledging their actual skillset, and permitted work and social acceptance that matches their actual skillsets- rather than punished for being wrong or possibly even having poor logic skills or lack of knowledge. Often people who dig their heals in the most are people who have or have witnessed a lot of prejudice/disdain toward unintelligent people and who can't handle considering they may be unintelligent in their approach to some issues.
Do we need people who throw around doubt about whether the earth is REALLY round, any time we discuss geography or overseas flight navigation? Devil's advocates, even annoying ones, can be valuable if they ask challenging questions, but out right trolls, or the genuinely uneducated, unintelligent, and misinformed, who just want to stir up doubt over basic science just because are not enhancing our understanding of truth or helping us face potential flaws in understanding. People form ideas based on what people they trust believe. Over riding that SHOULD require you understand the person, and demonstrate you are IN FACT more trustworthy than their sources/family/role models who have often won their trust through means other than demonstrating scientific skill, capacity to use logic, and factual knowledge base. These things are just skills and having them doesn't prove you are actually using these skills to truly seek truth and human welfare and to challenge your OWN assumptions and biases even when they seem so obviously correct as to be beyond questioning.
You have to realize that is also the manner in which ignorance breeds and we ALL have done it before.
posted by xarnop at 9:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
xarnop, that wall of text, with a very few simple edits, could be used by climate deniers to talk about the climate change scientists.
At what point can someone look at the same data and still disagree, and be respected? Is there room for mutual respect when both sides say that their opponents are wrong because they are either uneducated, misinformed, or uninsightful?
As an aside, at least we don't throw the word "fundie" around anymore, like we did a few years ago. At least, not that I've seen on the blue lately. I think it's a sign of greater respect.
posted by rebent at 10:19 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
At what point can someone look at the same data and still disagree, and be respected? Is there room for mutual respect when both sides say that their opponents are wrong because they are either uneducated, misinformed, or uninsightful?
As an aside, at least we don't throw the word "fundie" around anymore, like we did a few years ago. At least, not that I've seen on the blue lately. I think it's a sign of greater respect.
posted by rebent at 10:19 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
How could the Earth get so screwed up in only 6,000 years?
posted by Mack Twain at 10:21 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Mack Twain at 10:21 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
what internet researchers call "lurkers."
How these researchers taking credit for that word?
What internet researchers call "lulz", what internet researchers call "memes".
I think the researchers are the ones "trolling" here.
posted by Ad hominem at 10:48 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
How these researchers taking credit for that word?
What internet researchers call "lulz", what internet researchers call "memes".
I think the researchers are the ones "trolling" here.
posted by Ad hominem at 10:48 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
At what point can someone look at the same data and still disagree, and be respected?
Such circumstances are quite rare outside of debates among experts. Particularly with respect to climate change denial and anti-vax, it is more likely that people are simply digging in their heels in the face of the evidence in order to reinforce their collective identity rather than simply looking at the same data and having a good faith disagreement.
posted by deanc at 11:03 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Such circumstances are quite rare outside of debates among experts. Particularly with respect to climate change denial and anti-vax, it is more likely that people are simply digging in their heels in the face of the evidence in order to reinforce their collective identity rather than simply looking at the same data and having a good faith disagreement.
posted by deanc at 11:03 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
At what point can someone look at the same data and still disagree, and be respected?
I attended a brilliant Industrial Organization Psych talk when I was in grad school where a researcher presented some great work on employee participation in decision making and productivity. Basically, he was one of two labs that had competing claims and each had their own research data that supported their claims. A third researcher who was friends with both invited each of them to dinner without telling them the other was coming. When they both showed up he just said "Okay you two sort out your differences" and got up and left. They designed several studies to be run at each lab to try and work out why they were getting different results and ultimately found it was a small detail in the instructions given to the employees (Basically, you don't need participation in decision making - you just need to tell employees that their work is important for this particular positive productivity effect).
Good faith disagreements are usually resolved. It's the bad faith ones that linger forever because of the ever moving goalposts.
posted by srboisvert at 12:39 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
I attended a brilliant Industrial Organization Psych talk when I was in grad school where a researcher presented some great work on employee participation in decision making and productivity. Basically, he was one of two labs that had competing claims and each had their own research data that supported their claims. A third researcher who was friends with both invited each of them to dinner without telling them the other was coming. When they both showed up he just said "Okay you two sort out your differences" and got up and left. They designed several studies to be run at each lab to try and work out why they were getting different results and ultimately found it was a small detail in the instructions given to the employees (Basically, you don't need participation in decision making - you just need to tell employees that their work is important for this particular positive productivity effect).
Good faith disagreements are usually resolved. It's the bad faith ones that linger forever because of the ever moving goalposts.
posted by srboisvert at 12:39 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
Why Won't This Cat Answer My Questions About Climate Change?
posted by homunculus at 3:01 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 3:01 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
Over the last few years I've started using the newer, broader definition of "troll"; basically, anyone who persistently posts disruptive arguments, while refusing to engage in actual discussion. That's something based on observable behavior and doesn't ascribe motivations.
However, I think koeselitz has a point; it may not be helpful to use a word like "troll" for people who are merely misinformed. I need to take a second look at my opinion.
Someone posting denialist screeds to a climate change blog produces the same effect whether they really believe or are just faking it for the lulz, but only if nobody digs any deeper. If somebody engages the "troll" at a different level, the results will be pretty far different if the "troll" is a True Believer or just somebody doing it for the lulz. A true believer may or may not be reachable, but calling them names won't make it any easier.
On the other hand, the real trolls, the people who pee in the pool just to see everybody scramble-- they can go take a flying leap. Communication is hard enough without anybody deliberately making it worse.
posted by Zimboe Metamonkey at 7:19 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
However, I think koeselitz has a point; it may not be helpful to use a word like "troll" for people who are merely misinformed. I need to take a second look at my opinion.
Someone posting denialist screeds to a climate change blog produces the same effect whether they really believe or are just faking it for the lulz, but only if nobody digs any deeper. If somebody engages the "troll" at a different level, the results will be pretty far different if the "troll" is a True Believer or just somebody doing it for the lulz. A true believer may or may not be reachable, but calling them names won't make it any easier.
On the other hand, the real trolls, the people who pee in the pool just to see everybody scramble-- they can go take a flying leap. Communication is hard enough without anybody deliberately making it worse.
posted by Zimboe Metamonkey at 7:19 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Huh. I went to high school with one of these guys (the reporters). Small world.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:30 PM on July 22, 2013
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:30 PM on July 22, 2013
« Older Economic Mobility in the U.S. Varies... | The Last Days of Big Law Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rock Steady at 8:42 AM on July 22, 2013